Talk:Anti-Estonian sentiment

Notability

The subject's notability can be supported by the wealth of references in User:Digwuren/Workshop/Estophobia. In interest of carefully following Wikipedia policies, I won't copy them here wholesale, but integration is welcome. Digwuren 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those sources I placed the notability tag because I was unsure of the articles notability since it did not have any sources but I did not want to prod it as I did to Estophilia and then you improved the article dramatically (and I supported you taking the prod off) however I do think it would be best if this article contained the sources that you have in your workshop so as to make it easier for notability to be established ChrisLamb 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Russo-Estonian relations

Are you sure you wish to do this? The implications are rather deep...--Alexia Death 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

wikidictionary term

I think this is wikdictionary term...--Alexia Death 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this PROTECTED DOUBLE REDIRECT

{{editprotected}}

Please redirect this protected redirect to Estonia-Russia relations as it is currently a double redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. No need to shout. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD

Highly POV to redirect this title into Estonian-Russian relationship. Could any admin place an RfD template here for me? Thanks, --Irpen 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can thank your compatriot Mikkalai for turning this into a redirect [1]. We would prefer to turn it into an article about anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"most particularly"

Since the quotatuion for this intro sentence is not online, I cannot verify it. Please provide a citation that indeed says "most particularly". In my experience it is "most particularly" used in right/nationalist/angry blogs, etc., , rather than in Kremlin controlled media. - 7-bubёn >t 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Period

"Estonia's most foreign political disagreements having been with Russia for the last three centuries" Isn't the three centuries a bit to long time? Estonia hasn't been even idenpendent for that long. I think it would be more correct to say, that most foreign political disagreements of Estonian Republic have been with Russia (or Soviet Union). --Kyng (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The three-century boundary is there to contain the Great Nothern War, when Pyotr Pervyy conquered Estonia and Livonia, formerly Swedish overseas territories. Quite a number of the ethnic discontent memes can be traced back to that era.

Even more important sources of ethnopolitical conflict are the Russian-Japanese War of early 20th century, and the World War I, both predating the declaration of Republic of Estonia by several years. For example, there is some evidence that the pretentious epithet tibla, which nowadays is taken to mean stereotypically Soviet-minded people, was originally used to refer to Russian militants in the World War I. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge eSStonia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Anti-Estonian sentiment, for which there was also support in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinjugend_(2nd_nomination) -- Martintg (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

ESStonia was subject to an AfD due to notability issues, which resulted in "no concensus". This article should be merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment, as it is obviously an expression of this sentiment, and most of its content is already duplicated in this article anyway, so there are POVFORK issues too. Placing it within the wider context of this article gives the expression a more encyclopedic treatment. Martintg (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose eSStonia is obviously a notable term, which has been demonstrated to be notable in usage; it has a defined meaning and not a mish mash of original research. It is not simply an expression of "anti-Estonian sentiment", it is much deeper than that, in that it also a manifestation of discord surrounding the Bronze Soldier and Russian perceptions of the Estonian state, and relations between the two countries. Refer to other terms such as Great Satan, which by the same argument for merging should be placed in Anti-American sentiment, or Evil Empire which should be placed in Anti-Russian sentiment. As quite a notable political slogan/pejorative/neologism whatever, it should be documented and be allowed to expand in future. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is virtually non-existent in English sources, being basically mentioned in two articles in The Economist and a footnote in a grad student's paper, unlike coverage of the terms Great Satan or Evil Empire. For this reason alone its coverage as a standalone article is undue and the deeper issues Russian perceptions of the Estonian state is best covered in Anti-Estonian sentiment. I see no scope for expansion at all. Martintg (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then take it back to AfD, and bundle it together with Putinjugend, and they can all be dealt with at the same time. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you? Prove to us all you really are an aussie. Martintg (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to prove a thing to you or anyone else Martin. Why don't you to prove you are? --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They are all now at Afd, to settle this shit for once and for all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your disruption in this area has been noted. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merging. I do not see any difference between subjects of these two articles.Biophys (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment And at the same time you can see the difference between Phone call to Putin and Mikheyev v. Russia? (Igny (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

• Support, first of all it's ridiculous to call "eSStonia" a term in the first place. It's a boring joke at best. The only reliable source provided to justify the entry, the Econmist article spells it out clearly what is it all about.--Termer (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. It is also ridiculous to compare "eSStonia" with Great Satan or Evil Empire. The latter 2 have been used by state leaders unlike the first one, by the Russian chauvinist teens on the internet.--Termer (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, Termer. The notability of names flows from the notability of their name-callers. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Part of same subject. Best to include it there and have one complete article on the subject rather than scattering bits and pieces about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The eSStonia meme is not alone; it's just one of a series -- all only properly understood in the context of this article here. It wouldn't make sense to copy the context to individual articles, it's much better to just discuss those memes here, where the context is already available. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "eSStonia" is just some childish name calling. If it deserves any mention in any encyclopedia, the mention should be less than a paragraph long. It probably deserves a sentence or two in this article. Idlewild101 (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Putinjugend is also childish name calling. What is your opinion on that article? (Igny (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

• Support --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as long as neologisms are allowed. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's wait until it is 7 days old (02:34 UTC, Feb. 10). If the result would be not to merge (or inconclusive), I would resore the article no questions asked. Right now, since I simply did a blind merge, that is I merged the article as a section, I don't see any harm to leave it as is, so that we don't move back and forth the article again and again. If that is all right with the rest of you. I would like to stress one more time: if the result would be inconclusive, the article should be restored. ok? Dc76\^talk 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since discussion continues, you must undo your deletion of the article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's redirect, and the text is preserved integrally. Do you insist that I undo my edits? Dc76\^talk 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow the rules pal. No decision, no deletion. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just did it. :) Dc76\^talk 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a cookie for you (no this, no that). :) Also, taste this cookie. Now, seriously, I was under the impression that it's not a problem with being neologism, but with content fork. Perhaps you could elaborate (for everyone, not for me, I don't know all undersides of this) why having two articles would NOT be a FORK. Again, please try to explain this in layman's terms to non-Russians and non-Estonians, don't assume others automatically understand all aspects of the story. Dc76\^talk 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Fits much better in Anti-Estonian sentiment. Närking (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per Närking and others. eSStonia is not a "neologism" the way "Putinism" is, for example, because "eSStonia" is never written about as a place or phenomenon or used in serious journalism as an apellation for Estonia. It's litle more than Nashi name-calling. PetersV       TALK 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV and OR

A common approach of Estophobes is making accusations of Nazi-mindedness towards Estonians as a people, Estonia as a country, or particular celebrities or politicians

First off, Estophobes is not a word. I can find no reference to such a word, and we certainly don't use WP as advocacy for new words or terms which aren't in use in the real word. Also, statements such as the above are not NPOV and aren't even sourced. I have no reason to believe that there is not OR and POV editing going on here, and hence and marked the article as such. And WP can not under any circumstances be used as a reference for itself on such topics, unless it is relating to WP topics. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Martintg (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea what exactly has happened here, just making a note that none of what Russavia has claimed above has any bases to it. The word Estophobes is plural for Estophobe deriving from Estophobia. The word (or the term perhaps as Russavia usually likes to put it) Estophobe is available in Historical Dictionary of Estonia, p.301 used in the context of not accepting Estonia as an independent state, the view hold by Russian chauvinists. The word (or the term) is also available in French Histoire de l'Estonie‎ - Page 265.--Termer (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I think the opening sentence "generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia" is a bit silly an OR-is indeed. Not only because "hate of the Estonian people" is way over the top, and sounds completely unreasonable that someone would take their time to hate an entire nation. Hate or dislike "the Republic of Estonia" might be closer to factual accuracy, if only they didn't report the record for Russian tourists visiting Estonia last (2008) year [2] despite all that don't go to eSStonia campaign. So I think the article needs to be clear about what this Anti-Estonian sentiment AKA Estophobia all about, it's about 'not accepting the independence of Estonia'. Please see the sources anti-estonian independence, so far anything that has to do with "Anti-Estonian", it's in the context of the independence of the country.--Termer (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A knowledgeable friend of a friend has explained to me how Estonians and Latvians were, in history of Soviet film-making, often cast into the rôles of Nazis -- supposedly because the average watcher of such films would find both equally easy to hate. I'd say that's an expression of ethnic, not political hatred. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be also important to point out in the article that historically the phenomena is not restricted to Russian chauvinism , but also applies to the ideas of World Revolution and not to forget some Baltic Germans who once were not that happy about the independence of Estonia. There is a lot of work this article needs.--Termer (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, thumbing through my copy of Toivo Miljan's excellent book, I find the term "estophobe" on page 301. Will revert myself. Martintg (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As an avid follower of Putinjugend, User:Russavia might appreciate this news report, citing Roman Yelfimov of Nashi as using the word Estophobia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I recently read a piece by Russian chauvinists. It was basically claimed there that the October Revolution, Cheka and similar things were made by Estonians and Latvians “who were collectively known as Latvians” these days... Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page of the now merged into here article eSStonia

Info from source

From the Economist article...

After a fortnight in which Estonia's enemies made clever use of the cheap jibe that the country is oozing with nostalgia for the Waffen SS by spelling the country's name as eSStonia, the president's surname as IlveSS and the prime minister's as AnSSip, it is encouraging to see a counter-attack.

--Russavia ^Dialogue 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more from the Economist article left out for some reason.

What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another. That flatly contradicts the Kremlin’s revived Stalinist version of history, which puts Soviet wartime heroism and sacrifice at centre-stage, while assiduously obscuring all the historical context. Given how the Soviet Union treated Estonia in 1939-41, it is hardly surprising that those who fought the occupiers when they returned are regarded as heroes. But they were not Nazis, nor are those who admire them now.

--Termer (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Any article on WP can't be just made out of "cheap jibe" like cited above. At minimum the article should also represent alternative perspectives pr WP:NPOV. Until it tells just about the "cheap jibe" side of the story, the article is sorry to say, nothing more or less than an example of WP:TEDIOUS.--Termer (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't it? Putinjugend is the rebuttal. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no idea what are you talking about and why do you refer to another article on this talk page. In case you do have ideas how to go about the article you mentioned, please address those ideas at the relevant talk page.--Termer (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the AfD for Putinjugend, because apparently it is totally ok to have articles built out of fringe terms which are used only to disparage the subject. eSStonia is widely used in Russia, there is no denying that, and there are reasons behind it, such as at the time of the "desecration" of the Bronze Soldier there were movements in Estonia for the "honouring" of its NAZI past with memorials to the SS. Frankly, I would prefer that no such articles existed on WP, but there is obviously a push by some to use WP to fling as much shit as possible, but so long as there are sources which give eSStonia notability, and Putinjugend demonstrates that, then there is a place for this article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in Putinjugend whatsoever and you referring to this article here on this talk page has absolutely no relevance. Your claim that "eSStonia" is widely used in Russia would need a citation at first. And even if true, such an ethnic slur would be WP:UNDUE in English Wikipedia. But in case the article is not going to be deleted, it's going to have a full story once again told. Even though it is spelled out in many articles already, including Bronze Night, Estonia-Russia relations etc.--Termer (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the alternative viewpoints that have been removed from the article get restored, there is no progress made solving the WP:NPOV issues of this article.--Termer (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nashists and Nazis and Runet, oh my!

My, my, what nice article we have here! Making WP:POINT much, User:Russavia?

Anyway, now let's see if we can't get this article into a properly encyclopedic form. Wouldn't want it to be a shining coprolite of hate porn, wouldn't want that all. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to hurry bringing this article up to Wikipedia quality standards before the AfD has not been closed. But in case this article is not going to be deleted, I'm looking forward to citing fully the sources provided in the article. For example: see above "what really annoys Kremlin..." Also, since this article is painting a picture of Estonia as a "fascist state", Freedom in the World (report) is going to be very relevant to this article. --Termer (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it would all be WP:SYN. This is an article on the notable term only. That all belongs in other articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? Why would be citing all the facts from the Economist article on "eSStonia" be WP:SYN?--Termer (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I know this article's purpose is WP:COATRACK?

Because of this edit. The primary creator of this article, instead of calmly and scientifically analysing the term is doing all he can to deflect discussion towards how evil the Estonians are; to elevate the xenophobic rants of the Nashists to the limelight and to keep the sources of the term under the veil of darkness. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Estonians are evil. I've never expressed such an opinion. However, the term does describe the realities of Russian POV of Estonia; 60% regard Estonia as an enemy, etc. And the depiction is exactly how the term is used. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to depict the Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany and its realities as "Estonia's Nazi past" betray your real intentions. In the edit cited above, you're not quoting anybody; you're not citing anybody; you're, in your own voice, telling how it's "about" the "Nazi past".

Despicable, really. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the Nashi source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article has turned into a coat rack. Martintg (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it has not so much to do with the Nazi past, as it does have everything to do with the Nazi present; parades by Estonian SS members, SS memorials being erected in Estonia, and the desecration of Soviet war memorials. It may not be reality that Estonia is eSStonia, but eSStonia is a notable manifestation of this belief amongst the Russian public. And it's all sourced, the Nashi source for example. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that "SS memorials being erected in Estonia"? who told you that there are "Estonian SS members" and thay are having parades? The fact that the Symbol of Soviet Occupation in Estonia, the so called Bronze Soldier was relocated, that Russia considers it a desecration of a Soviet war memorial is another story, but there is nothing much more to it than those 2 sides of the story.--Termer (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very easy to answer your questions really. I mean you could even do this yourself. (Igny (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Since when google search has become a reliable source? Please refer to any secondary sources pr WP:RS to back up such claims, or more like opinions that have originated from the Russian state controlled media.--Termer (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just answered your question, "who told us..." Is that really hard for you to click on any of 26k Google hits and check whether they satisfy WP criteria as secondary source? Does The Independent satisfy it? Do I really have to do everything for you? (Igny from public terminal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.157.28 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of background section?

What exactly is the purpose of the background section in which a link to Freedom House is provided? It has absolutely nothing to do with the term eSStonia? --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this section as it is clearly not relevant to the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OR and coatrack

Martintg, instead of simply whacking tags on the article, please explain what, how, where, etc. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OR because you are using primary sources and creating your own discussion of the term when a published discussion does not exist, it is a coatrack for the reasons Digwuren stated. Martintg (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The "usage of term" section has also become a vehicle for soapboxing, with the addition of ganin's murder is unsolved, Siryk arrested, etc. Martintg (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this is not WP:OR I guess putting together an article like Russian smear campaign would be fine? after all the "term" has 261 returns in google and 3 in google books. Looks like much more notable term than "eSStonia".--Termer (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only primary sources that have been used in this article is the KP article (which is also backed up by an Estonian and Latvian source) and the Nashi article. The rest are not primary sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So far the article is a coatrack of the Bronze Soldier mess, which is fine by me, if the community wants it so, we can have 10's of articles on the subject. At the same time it remains WP:OR until the "term" is not defined by a WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned, the only source who has looked into it has defined "eSStonia" as a "cheap jibe". I'm open to alternative viewpoints as long as those come from secondary published sources and are verifiable. For example the statement that "eSStonia" is a "pejorative neologism" is not acceptable pr WP:OR until such a claim has been backed up by a WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Let's check out the references! It's fun!

Since this is the first lesson, we will not pick any cherry-flavoured reference. No! We will take the very first reference, [3], by Joseph Silver.

So, let's see what it says about the subject matter?

Unfortunately, the citation does not include page number, so some searching is needed. But once that is done, it turns out that this source mentions "eSStonia" exactly ...

[drumroll]

... ONCE.

On page 61, there's this paragraph:

“ The move resulted in riots in the streets of Tallinn, Russian protests at the

Estonian Embassy in Moscow, and stirred a bustling media battle over differing perspectives on the issue. A simple statue moved some people to a frenzy—not because the shaped metal held any particular intrinsic value, but because it was a national symbol. Creative as humans are, they use what they have available: next came a sophisticated cyberattack. “Estonia’s leading news outlet could not tell the world what was going on in its own country…. Web sites around Estonia had resorted to a siege defense by cutting off international traffic.”¹¹² Russian-language chat rooms surged with calls for further retribution, “exhorted readers to defend the motherland,” and provided instructions on how to launch attacks.¹¹³ In a fitting gesture, posts identified May 9—the Russian Victory Day celebrating victory over the Nazis—as D-Day for a large-scale attack. “‘You do not agree with the policy of eSStonia???’ demanded a user named Victoris on a Russian online forum. ‘You may think you have no influence on the situation??? You CAN have it on the Internet!’”¹¹⁴

”

Considering other related comments, it would seem User:Russavia saw it fit to cite a FOOTNOTE. Namely, footnote 114, which contains a clarification:

“ 114. Ibid., 3. Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism. ”

This concludes today's lesson.

Tomorrow: picking apart reference #2. For homework, please review how to count to one -- both forwards and backwards. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, for the first lesson, you best check the citation, because a page number was clearly included in the cite. It's from a scholarly article, and it establishes notability even further. People wanted a scholarly source, now they have it. And the article references this, which clearly shows that the term is used, although it doesn't explain exactly what eSStonia is. The other sources do though. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ES-ES-tonia

No reason to add this spelling in the intro, since it was used in a single newspaper article and only replicated in quotations, and in small numbers, too. - 7-bubёn >t 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is Russia?

Seeing as people are clearly being disruptive, here is a map for you who don't know Russia is.......

--Russavia ^Dialogue 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So the whole of Russia rose up spontaneously? Or just where Nashi activists happened to be? Martintg (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the media, on the internet, and used by notable people. It is enough to say that it "appeared in Russia", is not? And it's not just Nashi activists who have used the term, as is clearly seen in the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the difference Russavia. There are countries where Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer applies and then there are countries where views are diversified. Are you suggesting that Russia would fit into the first example and therefore we can just say in the context "Russia in general"? Please do not ignore and concerns but clearly spell it out 'who exactly says so'?--Termer (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Help for WP:OR and WP:NPOV

Since my attempt to address WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues of this article have all vanished overnight, I'm not going to try to edit the article for now because it could be considered edit warring. Instead I list the problems the article currently has down below, so feel free anybody to address it.

• The first thing first, since there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the topic that are also spelled out in the sources currently provided for the article. It needs to be spelled out in the lead section according to WP:NPOV/WP:YESPOV: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. The lead sections needs to be an independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. Currently the way the lead section has been spelled out is by itself WP:UNDUE according to the sourced provided, the Economist articles for example.

• "eSStonia" needs to be defined by verifiable secondary published sources, currently Wikipdia is a publisher of original thought by defining "eSStonia" as a "pejorative neologism".

• "its NAZI past" that is currently Wiki-linked to 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) is a Synthesis of published material which advances a position. The sources provided in the article, also cited above are very clear about it. Estonia never has had any "Nazi past", and linking a conscription military unit to such a phrase simply is not acceptable. Unless it is clearly spelled out that somebody in Russia thinks and claims that the conscription call during the German Occupation of Estonia gives Estonia it's "Nazi past" that would be fine unlike directly linking the 2 together. For an alternative perspective, please do not hesitate to cite Andrew Mollo, a British authority on the SS the Estonian SS were very different from other SS units: Estonia had been occupied by the Red Army in 1940, the Estonians fought for the independence of their country and were brought under the SS umbrella against their will.

• "Russia regards as desecration of Soviet-War memorials by the Estonian state"?? What "desecration of Soviet-War memorials" this phrase is talking about exactly? The phrase is currently wiki-linked to Bronze Night. Please clarify how many Soviet-War memorials were desecrated 'according to Russia' during the night?--Termer (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope that it helps!--Termer (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

To all editors involved din this article so far:

1. The history of edits to this article shows a partern of edit warring. This should stop.
2. The information presented in the article, when read by a non-Estonian and non-Russian, is cold and technical. And so it should become with Estonians and Russians. Don't take it personally anymore, please.
3. When you introduce text that is politically or ethniclaly charged, at least use a neutral tone. It is not that difficult.
4. Could we, please, go through a process of checking references and adding some new ones where required.
5. Those knowledgeable with the topic, could you please survery if the article covers the topic, or if there are some non-covered important aspects.

Let's work towards a stable version. Thank you. Dc76\^talk 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

-if the article covers the topic? No, it's just something that scratches the surface of the Bronze Soldier controversy and only covers some of the aspects. Also, like already pointed out above, historically any 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >[4].
But the current 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' in Russia goes a bit deeper than that, and that is not covered in the article at all. namely, the anti-Estonian sentiment that is intentionally escalated by Kremlin is related to s.c. Putin's "Estonia Complex". Please see the article published in The Moscow Times by Lynn Berry Behind Putin's Estonia Complex. Basically what is this all about, Putin's father who led a NKVD sabotage battalion operating in Estonia during WWII barely made it. After running out of food the group turned to the local population -Estonians who gave them up to the Germans. Basically, the way Lynn Berry puts it: before the Estonians had betrayed Putin's father's NKVD-led group in Estonia, it proceeded the NKVD arresting the Estonian leadership and anyone else who opposed Soviet rule during the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1940. So, that's what this article and the root of controversies is really about, and why anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin these days. The current prime minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin has supposedly a personal axe to grind against Estonians due to his father who was betrayed to the Nazis allegedly by some Estonian peasants. And taking it from here: Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia. [5]--Termer (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1) 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >[6].

why is this not mentioned in the article? please, do. Dc76\^talk 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2) Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia. [7] and Behind Putin's Estonia Complex.

why is this not mentioned in the article? please, do. Dc76\^talk 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything that is not sourced within the article, I will remove without question. People have been on WP long enough to know that the burden is on any editor who introduces material into articles to ensure it is sourced to a reliable source, otherwise it can be removed without question. I am doing this more and more on a wide range of articles these days, because as far as I see it, if I can include sources for every assertion of fact and ensure that information I introduce is sourced, then so can others, particularly those who have been here longer than I. In short, if it's not sourced, it will be removed. Additionally, I have now removed for the 2nd time, around 20 sources which are pure overkill. Out of all of the sources which were being used to reference a single statement, only a single one even came close to verifying the statement. About the "Putin sees the removal blah blah blah..." above, this article is not on Putin, it is on anti-Estonian sentiment, and it is much bigger than Putin; for Putin is only a single one of 100 million Russians who feel the same way about what the nationalist Estonian government did with the memorial. Patriarch Alexy also held similar views. It is about more than Putin, and if it is introduced into the article, this should be made clear and expanded upon. As to not accepting Estonia as independent, that is opinion that needs attribution to the author of said opinion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. However, please make sure you do it in two steps: 1) place a tag and allow some time for a sourse to be provided, 2) ask calmly to remove something, use comments like "I propose removing this sentence b/c it has not been soursed." The burden of providing a sourse is placed upon the person who made the edit, no doubt. But the burden to edit thoutfully (with one's mind, not with one's heart), and find formulations using a neutral tone, lies on every editor. About the 20 overkill sourses, why don't we discuss that separately below. Let's make a itemized list with 1) sourse and 2) phrase from the sourse relevant to the article, so that everybody can see whether each particular sourse is useful or not. And BTW, everybody, when editting, please keep in mind you are describing a phenomenon, hense remove yourself from it for a few minutes. The article should describe the anti-Estonian sentiment and its routes. The article should not say "anti-Estonian sentiment is shared by 100 million Russians", nor imply that in certain circumstances anti-Estonian sentiment is justified. Also, having a view on removal of a controversial monument does not place patriarch Alexy in the category of anti-Estonians. Finally, it would be couterproductive if we'd use adjectives such as "nationalist" every time we say "Estonian government", don't you think so? Dc76\^talk 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points Russavia! As far as I'm concerned, the entire section Accusations of sympathies with Nazism and eSStonia suffers from the problems you have pointed out. In fact none of the sources come to the conclusion like the section. therefore, the chapter is WP:SYNT and is going to be removed unless sources are going to be cited in the article properly. For example Technology and Culture in Modern Russia says “‘You do not agree with the policy of eSStonia???’ demanded a user named Victoris on a Russian online forum.. So this source speaks about a user Victoris, yet the text in the article speaks about "appeared in the Russian media, on Runet, and at the street protests". Where did you get this??? The second source speaks about "Komsomolskaya Pravda is running a campaign which portrays Estonia as a neo-Nazi state", yet again nothing even close to what the text in the article says. etc. Not to mention the Economist article by Edward Lucas [8] paints entirely different picture about the whole thing.--Termer (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation criteria

For quite a long while I've been monitoring all these "xenophobic" articles (until I made enemies with all ethnic sides, i.e., basically with the whole wikipedia), and all of them share a single huge major piece of original research I would like you to warn about: negative statements against certain governments must not be automatically classified as "anti-xeno". You must provide a reliable source which explicitly states that this and that person expressed anti-Estonian sentiment, rather than criticizes some action of a gov't: he may as well praise other actions, but this does not matter for the purpose of non-OR: a wikipedian has no right to make their own conclusion on the state of the sentiment. A very blunt example: those who criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq were at moments accused of anti-Americanism and even ostracized by super-patriots, but were they really anti-American? (actually, the article anti-Americanism may include statement, but only in the form "yes, they were, in the eyes of hardliners and Bushists").

Closer to the topic: while the Bronze Soldier did gave rise to the surge of the Estophobia, not all criticism of the Est.gov't actions is automatically a sign of bad sentiment. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Critisizing a government is absolutely ok. Defaming a nation/ethnic group is a totally different domain. It's one thing to say "the government was wrong removing the Bronze solder" (even if the government would be 100 times right, one still can critisize it 101 times), and a totally different thing to run campains "I don't travel to eSStonia." Dc76\^talk 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Anti-Russian sentiment also. Ostap 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Please do not remove citations from the article and add citation needed tags to the content that was previously cited. This is not allowed and is totally inappropriate. Please improve the article by adding good citations. Only controversial or disputed bits should be removed, and they should probably be put on the talk page for discussion and to to give others the opportunity to supply the citations needed. Some very destructive editing is going on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before jumping in waving a club: the talk page already started the discussion on how to handle citations. - 7-bubёn >t 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you have re-included a heap of unsourced information into Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Accusations_of_discrimination_of_minorities. WP:BURDEN now clearly applies here. If this information is not sourced within a few days, I will remove it without question. Also, please note that you have reinserted a heap of sources which are not required...most of it is propanda...letters from Estonian community in Canada to Stephen Harper? WTF is this? It's an encyclopaedia, not an outlet for propaganda. You have claimed that the information in that section is also sourced...I am now requesting for you to provide direct citations from those sources which verify the claims now marked with {{check}}. And also note, in what can be described as somewhat tedious editing, I have updated a URL link for a source, only to have that reverted by yourself on two occasions - instead of doing blind wholesale reverts, editors should take of edit summaries, because I often do fixes such as this. WP:V is a core policy on WP, and if it is not sourced, particularly on contentious articles, I will remove it without question, because we shouldn't be adding a single thing to WP which isn't sourced and able to be verified; otherwise it is called original research. Anyway, please provide the citations as asked above. Thanks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you, please, in the future talk more calmly. You can say exactly the same things without so to say a stick in your hand. Being agreessive might satisfy you personally, but it really protrays here a very unpleasant image of yourself. Just please. Dc76\^talk 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Considering that SAFKA's only cause celebre is its campaign of spurring anti-Estonian sentiment, perhaps it makes sense to merge the article on SAFKA here? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Why is some anti-fascist entity anti-estonian? And what is sentimental about being anti-fascist? And what does Finland have to do with Estonia?(Igny (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

They say that they are "anti-fascist", and the say that Estonia currently has a "fascist government", and that's the reason they are "anti-fascist". What does Finland have to do with Estonia? According to Johan Bäckman, the leader of the "anti-fascist": the Estonians and Finns are actually one nation and the Reublic of Estonia should be united with Finland where it could still have an autonomy.[9].--Termer (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I still do not understand. Say, I am looking for anti-fascist organizations in Europe, in particular in Finland. Why should I look for anti-estonian sentiment instead? It is counter-intuitive to me. (Igny (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

I could also argue that Nashi's activity seems to be primarily spurring the anti-Estonian sentiment. Should we merge Nashi into this article also? (Igny (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

You cannot merge articles with completely different topics. You may may re-use or cross-reference the texts. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of sign

Please stop deleting. As it's EN:WP, a translation is provided, that's the point of a translation. PetersV       TALK 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about a translation of the source? We English speakers have no way of telling if it's reliable or factual. Shotlandiya (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF works well enough. You can always type the text into any of a number of online translation engines to independently verify translations—certainly well enough to satisfy yourself on accuracy. PetersV       TALK 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should I go to the effort - this is English Wikipedia!! Shotlandiya (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I do machine translations all the time. English Wikipedia does not mean mono-cultural. If you're not motivated even by plain curiosity, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. PetersV       TALK 03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not discourage other editors to contribute, that is a big no no. Also do not think that you are better or more experienced contributor, so you can stop lecturing other editors. (Igny (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

I am discouraged when editors instead of rising to meet intellectual curiosity respond with: "Why should I bother?" In working on Wikipedia I have both (for myself) confirmed certain editorial opinions, but, more importantly, changed others, sometimes radically, based on digging further. Please do not assume I've stuck myself on some pulpit and am "lecturing" in a demonstration of bad faith. I am observing that Wikipedia requires work. "Why should I bother?" sends the wrong message, that of a closed, not open, mind. If that's an editor's response and attitude to a challenge to engage themselves in the learning process, I stand by my observation. PetersV       TALK 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be a correct stand if editors were not anonymous here. But here every time someone mentions the "learning process" I have a mental picture of a teenager lecturing an elder (which could be wrong but I have no way of disproving it). (Igny (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Just visiting below, I'm way past my teen years. :-) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sander Säde's sigh

09:39, 16 October 2009 Sander Säde (talk | contribs) (19,062 bytes) (→Accusations of sympathies with Nazism: adding Arpo here as well, as the previous editor is on bias-campaign and not adding any alternate viewpoints. Once again, sigh.)

Sander Säde, in wikipedia proper balance is achieved in a way exactly what you did: adding missing balance. You cannot demand from a person to write everything. After all, a single person does not know everything. Even if a person is not willing to write everything, it is still OK: wikipedia is based on contributions of many. You have to work patiently and not comment on intentions of your opponent. After all, with all this wikipedia anonymity, may be his grandfather was a gypsy rounded up by Nazi in Estonia, and he has rights to have hard feelings, just as you may have hard feelings for killing post-WWII Estonian resistance. Still, all of us put various pieces of mosaic, about various notable facts and opinions. Mukadderat (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, good-intentioned editors try to describe things from a neutral viewpoint, adding material for both pro- and against. Whereas biased editor picks material and sources to enforce his own views. And if someone has "hard feelings", then I would recommend staying away from the article, instead of deliberately inserting biased material - there are several articles that I do not edit for this very reason. --Sander Säde 16:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I get accused, for example, of various anti-whomever feelings, hatred, and all—the product of others projecting (IMHO) their hard feelings on me. We need to be careful not to ascribe feelings or to succumb to them in contributing to articles. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed SWC allegations

I removed the paragraph regarding the SWC allegations from Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Accusations_of_sympathies_with_Nazism, as I don't see how this is on the topic of anti-Estonian sentiment. --Martintg (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what was "explained"?

Nothing was "explained." That "eSStonia" surfaced, for example, is not "sensationalist," and there is no reason to delete it as such. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What was explained was that using synthesis or taking advantage of original conclusions, as you did in your wholesale revert to an old version (see diff to note that you didn't bother to keep a single change), is unacceptable. Sources that do not talk about anti-Estonian sentiment in explicit and clear terms should not be included, since one cannot rely on the opinion or judgment of a Wikipedia editor as one would rely on the opinion or judgment of an expert. Nor should sources be presented tendentiously. If you agree with Martintg's judgment that the Simon Wiesenthal Center's criticism of Estonia's alleged rehabilitation of fascism should not be described as anti-Estonian sentiment, there is no reason to present Russian opinion along the same lines as an instance of anti-Estonian–does it take much thought to consider that perhaps what Russia objects to is what it perceives as glorification of Nazi collaborators hailed as freedom-fighting heroes in the Baltic states, and not an instance of anti-Estonianism? In fact, where somebody actually alleges that Russians or others used anti-Estonian sentiment during the WWII-related disputes, such as during the 2007 Bronze Soldier incident, I did not delete those opinions, but actually presented them in an attributed manner (we can always discuss the wording specifically, if you believe that I didn't do a good enough job, but I think that what I wrote is far closer to what's written in the single source making the claim).

Keep in mind that Estonian political leaders, like Edgar Savisaar and Tiit Vahi have condemned the Ansip government's handling of the Bronze Soldier issue, so to assert that Russia is being anti-Estonian is on par to calling two of these Estonian prime ministers anti-Estonian as well. (I am sure that right wing nationalist Estonians–I'm guessing folks like Tiit Madisson–do perceive political leaders like Savisaar and Vahi as anti-Estonian traitors, but I am extremely skeptical that this is the relevant NPOV. Hence, mere criticism of the Estonian government's role in Bronze Night is not equivalent to anti-Estonian sentiment.) [10]

The cited letter I removed [11] from the lede of an article (ostensibly) intended to deal with anti-Estonian sentiment does not explicitly discuss or detail anti-Estonian sentiment. It is a primary source that does not discuss anti-Estonian sentiment, but the expats perception of Russia's intervention in Estonian political issues during the Bronze Soldier dispute as a destabilizing force–naturally, the only part of the open letter that was included in the article. (Of course, one can read a primary source in various ways, but in no fashion does Wikipedia endorse intepreting a primary source in order to fit a preselected reading: check WP:PRIMARY and then have a glance at WP:COATRACK, if all that is asserted by the writer is Russia's alleged role in contributing to Estonia's social destabilization.)

As an example of what I think is a better-written article on anti-X or anti-Y sentiments, please check the Estonia section of Anti-Russian sentiment: every source used as a reference for the section explicitly mentions "Anti-Russian sentiment" or "Russophobia" as the phenomenon being discussed, to avoid any possible tendentious reading of sources, synthesis, or item of original thought. (This sort of maximally strict treatment of the content came about of course, of course, after users such as yourself and Martintg insisted deleting every instance of using a source that simply mentioned things such as Estonia's allegeed discrimination against Russophones on the grounds that this constituted WP:COATRACK or WP:SYNTH. I hope that we can apply a similar standard here.)

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The eSStonia phenomenon is a real manifestation of anti-Estonian sentiment, so I have returned that part. The only reason the Estonia section of Anti-Russian sentiment is reasonable is due to the efforts of Vecrumba and myself. --Martintg (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "eSStonia phenomenon" appeared in the midst of the 2007 events in Estonia, which should be noted in the article chronology-wise. I think this is poorly sourced, but it has some apparently legitimate material like the Yabloko complaint, I am going to move this to the 2007 Bronze Soldier controversy section while you look for sources that authoritatively state what some EEML members seem to be trying to insinuate. (Why do we employ different standards for source on Anti-Russian sentiment and anti-Estonian sentiment?) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of "different standards." What am I trying to "insinuate?" Yours is not a constructive dialog, as I have no clue regarding what you're going on about. eSStonia was covered in the press, it was not one person saying something. Popular Russian distaste regarding the Baltics is real—I don't know when the last poll has been done, but Latvia, for example, regularly ranked in the top three of Russia's enemies. To call that anti-Latvian sentiment on the part of Russians would not be a tendentious edit.

The different standards are that you and Martintg seem to consider it necessary for a source to directly discuss "anti-Russian sentiment" in order to pass through your standard, whereas anything that you feel may be indicative of "anti-Estonian sentiment" here (without directly expressing any such thing) passes by without any filtering, if we take a look at the massive revert you performed. (You can see above that I've directly addressed everything point by point aside from including my rationales in the edit summaries, only to have you revert exactly to the same version that had existed previously without any explanation.

   Representing Edgar Savisaar as a politician representing the mainstream is the tendentious suggestion here. It's silly to pretend that any collection of politicians of country X is a bloc. Exceptions to the (vast) majority situation don't change it.

You haven't addressed the point: if it's not "anti-Estonian" for two prime ministers of Estonia two call Estonia's actions during the Bronze Soldier dispute stupid or provocative against Russia, then it's hard to conjure up the "evil anti-Estonian Russians" idea when similar sentiments are vented in the Russian Federation. (Who exactly decides what falls under acceptable criticism and what falls under anti-Estonian sentiment? You? This is why reliable sources are used in articles like this.)

   On Bronze night, Russia is certainly not going to describe any of its positions as anti-Estonian or anti-Latvian, only standing for the rights of oppressed near-abroad Russians. Characterizations of Russian statements and actions as being anti-Estonian are, of course, going to have to come from someplace else. And do try and stop with the (parenthetical editorializing barbs about hypocritical editing) already, you don't want to go there. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence my insistence on use of adequate sources that address the subject, clearly attributed, without any gaps left for the reader's interpretation. Different standards–and, alas, the accompanying chorus of hypocrisy–are not hard to find on Wiki if one looks hard enough. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The material User:PasswordUsername deleted was sourced. He does not appear to be adopting a very constructive approach here, first he entirely deletes the thoroughly sourced eSStonia section, twice infact[12][13], before moving it into the Bronze Soldier section[14], even though there was consensus for it being a separate section in the merge discussion above Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia. He also deleted a sourced section [15] before discussion could be fully developed in Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#.22Accusations_of_discrimination_of_minorities.22. --Martintg (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you addressing me in the third person? There was no "consensus for it being a separate section"–the WP:EEML-tainted consensus you are speaking of was for a merge into Anti-Estonia. (By the way, if good arguments come up, do not ignore them on the grounds of citing old consensus...) As for the other "sourced" synth section, I wanted to wait for discussion but removed it by accident when selecting text. It's still unjustifiable, IMHO. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I respectfully request you dispense with the it's EEML they are POV pushing asses method of discussing content. Past consensus based on sources does not need to change—nor will it—to suit your personal demands. Lastly, if you wish to debate "tainted", you will not like the results. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • When consensus is altered by means of coordination as appears to have been the case for this previous one, it's probably good sense to take it with some skepticism. However, if this is not what you wish to currently focus on, I ask that you review the issues and provide your arguments here. I note that you have not yet addressed any of my points: I've helpfully provided those right above for you. I will again reiterate that reverting due to "past consensus" (even if such past consensus were valid) isn't the right way of going about discussing content: when new arguments are presented by editors on the article talk page, they should be addressed, not bypassed by saying "see what was decided on this note many months ago"–most especially when what is brought up again was never directly addressed there. I think I have provided quite a few here. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Oh, please about the "altered" consensus. No editor whom you consider to be opposed to your generally dim view of Estonia editorial viewpoint has countered your points on anything other than reputable sources fairly represented in a balanced manner. Ignoring past consensus is just your can opener for opening up every past editorial dispute which has been settled into stable articles. If you go on a campaign to re-introduce your POV similar to prior episodes, such as Estonians commonly sexually abusing their children, the results will be the same.
   As for "if it's not "anti-Estonian" for two prime ministers of Estonia two call Estonia's actions during the Bronze Soldier dispute stupid or provocative against Russia", I'm sorry, that's like saying Russia denouncing Latvia's citizenship laws is "not anti-Latvian" if two Latvian politicians side with the Russian denouncement. When you come up with some legitimate point based on reputable sources and not your personal craftings, I'll be glad to discuss. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations of discrimination of minorities"

Imho the whole paragraph is of such quality that it should be removed form the article.

Most of the first part is unreferenced since February 2009, the only referenced one being the bit about the Levada centre survey. By itself it of course does not confirm anything and its relevance to the topic itself should be proven (e. g. if I think that country Ch. discriminates against its T. minority it doesn't mean that I've got anti-Ch. feelings).

The first sentence of the second part is also unreferenced; the second one seems to be very well referenced but it's an illusion. First, sources [16] and [17] are of Russian origin, so it's the personal opinion of the editor who inserted them here that they display any anti-Estonian sentiment, someone else might think that they faithfully depict the situation in Estonia. There are no sources presented that would point to them as to the examples of anti-Estonian sentiment.

So only a Postimees article is left (btw this means that attribution would be nice) but, judging from the google-translation, it nowhere says anything to confirm the preceding passage Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved. Maybe such assertion is made in the article and google just could not translate it (help from an Estonian-speaking editor here would be appreciated).

So I propose to remove the section altogether and (if needed) start it from scratch using reliable sources and attributing them properly. Alæxis_¿question? 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

However in the first Russian opinion you cite, Mikhail Demurin is a significant figure and is well qualified to comment. Given that the second paragraph is fairly well sourced, I think it should be retained, though I agree that the first paragraph should be deleted since it's been tagged for quite a while now. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Demurin's article is not a bad source by itself; but where exactly the following assertions are made there: that "Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia regarding supposed political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries are made by Russian authorities, media and activists" and that "Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved."? Alæxis_¿question? 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I reviewed the sources and I do see what you mean. This may well be sourced in some Estonian language publications as you say, so some input here from a resident would be helpful. --Martintg (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)